ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2022
Towards routine employment of computational tools for antimicrobial resistance determination via high-throughput sequencing.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diversity of antibiotic resistance genes increases in urbanized lakes: A multi-tool screening.iScience · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for antimicrobial resistance: advancing reproducibility, interpretability, and clinical deployment.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- TheFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- KARGAMobile: Android app for portable, real-time, easily interpretable analysis of antibiotic resistance genesFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing threat to public health and farming at large. In clinical and veterinary practice, timely characterization of the antibiotic susceptibility profile of bacterial infections is a crucial step in optimizing treatment. High-throughput sequencing is a promising option for clinical point-of-care and ecological surveillance, opening the opportunity to develop genotyping-based AMR determination as a possibly faster alternative to phenotypic testing. In the present work, we compare the performance of state-of-the-art methods for detection of AMR using high-throughput sequencing data from clinical settings. We consider five computational approaches based on alignment (AMRPlusPlus), deep learning (DeepARG), k-mer genomic signatures (KARGA, ResFinder) or hidden Markov models (Meta-MARC). We use an extensive collection of 585 isolates with available AMR resistance profiles determined by phenotypic tests across nine antibiotic classes. We show how the prediction landscape of AMR classifiers is highly heterogeneous, with balanced accuracy varying from 0.40 to 0.92. Although some algorithms-ResFinder, KARGA and AMRPlusPlus-exhibit overall better balanced accuracy than others, the high per-AMR-class variance and related findings suggest that: (1) all algorithms might be subject to sampling bias both in data repositories used for training and experimental/clinical settings; and (2) a portion of clinical samples might contain uncharacterized AMR genes that the algorithms-mostly trained on known AMR genes-fail to generalize upon. These results lead us to formulate practical advice for software configuration and application, and give suggestions for future study designs to further develop AMR prediction tools from proof-of-concept to bedside.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.